Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to speak to amendment 62. The climate change legislation relies heavily on the advisory body, the UK Climate Change Committee, which we all recognise provides really invaluable formal advice as well as really invaluable informal advice to Government and this committee. It is fair to say that, over the years that the CCC has been in operation and since the Parliament and Government have engaged with it, there have been issues relating to its capacity and resources and, because of that, with how responsive it has been in providing the advice that is needed at the right time, given changing circumstances.

If we think back to 2023, when the climate change plan was delayed, Chris Stark was vocal in saying that the delay had thrown out the CCC’s work programme as well as the window that was available to it to provide advice for the Scottish Parliament on our emissions reduction progress. In effect, we have been in a position in which the level of advice that the Parliament was expecting has not been available, because of the CCC’s capacity and its work programme.

We were in a similar position with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, in that the CCC was unable to provide formal advice on the 2030 target because it was still completing its work on the peatland inventory. When we set the targets for 2030 under the 2019 act, we did not have full advice from the CCC. That was not the CCC’s fault; it was to do with its capacity and work programme.

I lodged amendment 62 because the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that, whenever Environmental Standards Scotland produces its annual report, it must communicate a statement to the Parliament on whether it has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. We cannot require something similar from the UKCCC because of how it is set up, although I think that it would be preferable if it could publicly talk about any capacity or resources issues that it has. My amendment is competent in that it requires the Scottish Government to report on whether there are capacity issues and to consult the CCC in doing that.

Good morning. Minister, will you explain why a franchising scheme that is approved by a panel is less likely to be subject to legal challenge than one that is approved by a transport authority? That seems to be a key reason why the Government at the time decided to go down this route.

I welcome the fact that Douglas Lumsden has moved the motion to annul, because it has enabled us to have a full debate, discussion and exploration of all the issues, which I felt were lacking at our previous meeting. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that.

I believe that there is a strong consensus in the committee and in Government and that we want bus franchising to work in this country, but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented. We need to have a fair and robust decision on franchising—that is absolutely critical. It seems that we have two options. If the SSI is annulled there will still be a panel, although it will be a decision-making panel that will be appointed by the traffic commissioner. If the SSI goes through, there will still be a panel that is appointed by the traffic commissioner, but there will be additional guidance from the Scottish Government.

Is there evidence that panels reduce the risk?

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. I do not think that amendment 62 contains anything that would require the Scottish Government to fully fund the Climate Change Committee. The amendment relates very much to the work that that committee does in relation to Scottish carbon budgets. It is important that the issue is continually raised. If that is done through interministerial forums, so be it. An understanding of our needs, of the issues that are emerging from deliberation on our climate change plan and the budget and of the CCC’s capacity to deliver on that need to be part of an active conversation.

I will consider whether it is worth revisiting amendment 62 ahead of stage 3, but I do not intend to press it at this point. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has, I think, acknowledged that this is an issue. I think that she has acknowledged that—I am not sure. [Interruption.] She has—right, okay.

I have just read out a list of specific ideas that will help Scotland to reduce its climate emissions.

If Mr Simpson wants to go for a full dualling of the A96, I suspect that that will result in enormous amounts of carbon emissions that will be locked in for decades ahead. I say to Mr Simpson and to other members in the chamber—if this Parliament wants to make such decisions, we have to live with the consequences; if we go for high-carbon infrastructure, it has a consequence, so we need to measure it and understand it. If members want to trade that off against emission reductions somewhere else in the economy, they can make that decision, but we have to operate within our carbon budget. I think that that is implicit within this bill.

The bill does not alter climate ambition, which will come through the setting of a carbon budget next year. However, it does offer the opportunity to learn lessons from the past five years, especially through the need to link action plans with financial budgets and the new carbon budgets. Aligning a five-year carbon budget with a clear and costed plan will, I hope, deliver honest and transparent consideration of what is actually needed on the ground to get to net zero. The evidence that was presented on that by the Scottish Fiscal Commission was important and I hope that the Government will consider giving it a formal role in the process.

If there is time in hand, I will certainly take the cabinet secretary’s intervention.

Looking back on that target, I accept that it seems that it would have been incredibly difficult to achieve, but that target was arrived at in the context of a debate about the climate science. As I said earlier, scientists such as Jim Skea said that even a 75 per cent target would give us only a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C. It was a debate about the science. I agree with Liam McArthur that we should also have had a debate about how we would get to the targets and what that would mean for society. I hope that that can now come through the new budgeting process.